Though Nick's answers are my favorites by far!

Hello, Raoul!

Are politics a science or an art?

If psychology is a science, then politics can be too.

The best scientists, even in the hard sciences, bring a high degree of imagination and strong instincts to their work. The same is true of politics.

Politics applies specific stimuli in a controlled manner to obtain a predictable result. Politics often works from theory at its highest level, but a maverick can come from nowhere, with nothing but the brains he was born with, and cause all the theories to be re-examined. In that way, politics resembles lab science.

The argument against politics being an art is the fact that there are no aesthetic considerations. Whatever works is the thing to do, regardless of truth or beauty.

Do we better know the present than the past?

Oh, from an objective point of view, definitely the present. We know what's happening around us now because we ourselves are the actors and witnesses. The past is remembered through a filter of what we know of the results, always edited. The distant past is only known through the testimony and artifacts of those who lived before, who had their own filters. Besides dealing with the points of view of those long dead, we must keep in mind our own attitudes and how they affect our understanding of past events. We know more about the past, and we certainly think we know the past, but we actually know the present better.

Defending one's rights is it the same as defending one's interests?

Only for someone who is entirely devoted to the abstract. Rights are abstract. Interests are concrete. When I defend my rights, I defend principles, and I defend the rights of all, or at least all in my society or my class, when I defend my own. Even the divine right of kings was defended on principle to include all civil authority, and the greater good of the people at large.

When I defend my interests, I defend something particular of use or value to me. My home, my livelihood, my investments, an organization or institution I belong to or use, even the interests of my children, who are also my interests as I am their guardian: these are all particular, and not abstract. I will frequently invoke my rights to defend my interests, but my interests will sometimes put me at odds with other people, who also invoke rights -- sometimes the same ones! -- to defend their opposing interests.

For instance: I live in a growing community with a lot of surrounding farmland. Is the farmer's interest in selling his land to a developer who wants to build apartments more important than a homeowner's interest in preserving the value of his property from the devaluation that usually comes from nearby rental properties? Their interests are diametrically opposed, even though they both base their arguments on property rights.

Is language diversity an obstacle to understanding the people?

Yes! Sometimes within the same language!

The question doesn't specify whether it's an important obstacle, to which I would say no, not by itself. Coupled with an ignorance of culture, it's a dreadful obstacle. But an obstacle it is.

It's an interesting and benign obstacle, though, by and large.

Take care, Raoul--
Mary Anne